Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

[Yoozername]

It would be interesting to know which 105mm US weapons got priority on the ammunition. Especially since there were 'shortages' experienced in the ETO. I would guess the Sherman 105mm would have some priority, with all the M2 weapons being next, and the M3 guns being last.

It would seem, whether by design or not, the Sherman tank and even the M10 TD became the actual 'infantry support guns'. Mostly from the tank or TD battalion that were attached to infantry divisions. The sherman 75 was certainly better with a much heavier HE round than the 3 inch gun's HE.

[Richard Anderson]

It would be interesting to know which 105mm US weapons got priority on the ammunition. Especially since there were 'shortages' experienced in the ETO. I would guess the Sherman 105mm would have some priority, with all the M2 weapons being next, and the M3 guns being last.

The 105mm Howitzer M2, M2A1, and M4 all used the same projectiles and cartridge cases. The M3 used the same projectiles, but different cartridge cases. Production of the former began in February 1941 and totaled 85,482,000. For the latter production began in January 1943 and totaled 7,920,000 rounds. I'm not sure you can calculate or infer a prioritization from that.

It would seem, whether by design or not, the Sherman tank and even the M10 TD became the actual 'infantry support guns'. Mostly from the tank or TD battalion that were attached to infantry divisions. The sherman 75 was certainly better with a much heavier HE round than the 3 inch gun's HE.

Since the Medium Tank M4 was a "tank" then yes, by definition it was an infantry support gun, as were the light tanks. Since its gestation was spurred by the last Chief of Infantry, then by design as well it was an infantry support gun. Yes, the 75mm's 1.47 pound TNT charge weight was substantially more than the 0.86 pounds of the 3"/76mm.

[Yoozername]

The 105mm Howitzer M2, M2A1, and M4 all used the same projectiles and cartridge cases. The M3 used the same projectiles, but different cartridge cases. Production of the former began in February 1941 and totaled 85,482,000. For the latter production began in January 1943 and totaled 7,920,000 rounds. I'm not sure you can calculate or infer a prioritization from that.

from Wiki...I should look into it...

The gun fired semi-fixed ammunition, similar to the ammunition of the M2; it used the same projectiles and the same 105 mm Cartridge Case M14, but with different propelling charge. The latter used faster burning powder to avoid incomplete burning; it consisted of a base charge and four increments, forming five charges from 1 (the smallest) to 5 (the largest). In an emergency, gunners were authorized to fire M1 HE rounds prepared for the Howitzer M2, but only with charges from 1 to 3. M1 HE rounds for the M3 could be fired from an M2 with any charge.[10]

HEAT M67 Shell had non-adjustable propelling charge.

I suspect, if the above is true, that the M2 or M4 could use the M3 ammunition. It is just faster burning. All the ammunition is semi-fixed, and supplied with all the charges. It would be certainly possible to swap in different charges. I could see div-arty glomming the infantry guns ammo.

[Richard Anderson]

from Wiki...I should look into it...

Well there's your problem...

I suspect, if the above is true, that the M2 or M4 could use the M3 ammunition. It is just faster burning. All the ammunition is semi-fixed, and supplied with all the charges. It would be certainly possible to swap in different charges. I could see div-arty glomming the infantry guns ammo.

Possibly, but unlikely there would be many circumstances were it was necessary.

"The M2, M2A1 and M4 howitzers fire the same complete rounds of ammunition, while the M3 howitzer uses different complete rounds due to its shortened barrel." (Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items, Vol. II, 1 March 1944, p. 534)

The M3 propelling charge used single-perforation grains and a web of 0.014 inch, while the M2, M2A1, and M4 used a seven-perforation grain and web of 0.025 inch. Charges 1 through 5 yielded the same MV and range at the same elevation for each piece, but I don't believe that means the M3 charge in the M2, M2A1, and M4 would yield the same results as the M2, M2A1, and M4 charge and vice versa?

[Yoozername]

Possibly, but unlikely there would be many circumstances were it was necessary.

Except the ammunition shortage??? We did discuss that once?

[Richard Anderson]

Possibly, but unlikely there would be many circumstances were it was necessary.

Except the ammunition shortage??? We did discuss that once?

It would get solved by using rounds that reduced the range of the piece by two-thirds? I think a better solution would have been to not enact the production cutbacks of February-August 1943 and to have increased the orders for September 1943-March 1944. In December 1944 the ETO and MTO consumed 2.7-million rounds of 105mm M1 HE. Production in November was 2.433 million.

Mind you that doesn't solve the shipping and unloading and distribution problem...

[Yoozername]

Charges 1 through 5 yielded the same MV and range at the same elevation for each piece, but I don't believe that means the M3 charge in the M2, M2A1, and M4 would yield the same results as the M2, M2A1, and M4 charge and vice versa?

and...

It would get solved by using rounds that reduced the range of the piece by two-thirds?

Seem to either contradict each other or maybe you are just speculating? But, you seem happy, or like to use LOL's?

It is certainly worth researching, but on the face of it (using your posts), they achieved the same velocity? Range difference could then be attributed to the simple fact that the elevation on the M3 was less than the M2 or M4. So, if that was the case, A M2 firing the M3 'fast burn' propellant would have comparable range.

The ammunition, for all, was semi-fixed. That is, the projectile can be shimmied out and the charges taken out to adjust for the firing solution. Not always full charge, of course, since that would beat the guns. Gunners record all firings and note the charge to assess the life of the weapon. In fact, the accumulation of excess charges is natural. One could substitute these as an expedient. The US was not as rigid as you might think. They even substituted German 105mm ammunition in the US guns at one point.

[Richard Anderson]

Seem to either contradict each other or maybe you are just speculating? But, you seem happy, or like to use LOL's?

Huh? No, it is not speculation, it's taken directly from the Ordnance Catalogue.

It is certainly worth researching, but on the face of it (using your posts), they achieved the same velocity? Range difference could then be attributed to the simple fact that the elevation on the M3 was less than the M2 or M4. So, if that was the case, A M2 firing the M3 'fast burn' propellant would have comparable range.

Each piece, using its own charge and the same elevation, achieved the same range with the same charge. However that does not mean that switching the charges from the M3 to the M2 would achieve the same velocity. The faster burning propellant in the M3 charge was to compensate for the shorter length of the barrel, but then wouldn't faster burning in a longer barrel do the opposite?

The ammunition, for all, was semi-fixed. That is, the projectile can be shimmied out and the charges taken out to adjust for the firing solution. Not always full charge, of course, since that would beat the guns. Gunners record all firings and note the charge to assess the life of the weapon. In fact, the accumulation of excess charges is natural. One could substitute these as an expedient. The US was not as rigid as you might think.

Sure, but mixing powder charges of different types doesn't seem like much of a solution for anything, when the problem was shortages of complete rounds? And yes, I do know how unrigid the US Army could be.

They even substituted German 105mm ammunition in the US guns at one point.

Sure, and 75mm ammunition for that matter.

[Yoozername]

The faster burning propellant in the M3 charge was to compensate for the shorter length of the barrel, but then wouldn't faster burning in a longer barrel do the opposite?

It was to compensate for unburned powder flashing out the end of the barrel on the M3. So, what do you mean by 'opposite'??? Even less smoke and firing signature on the M2?

Another reason the M3 gun seems like a Kludge is that the ammunition (which is physically as volumetrically the same as the M2), also would take up as much space in shipping as the M2. These rounds came in 2 piece crates and weighed 125 pounds. One of the advantages of an infantry gun is a smaller overall cartridge. If it can use existing projectiles, that is a plus (note the German 75mm IG didn't). The Pack 75mm US howitzer used the common 'sherman' M48 HE as well as other projectiles. It had it's own shortened cartridge case. Maybe the 105mm M3 should have just been made for the airborne in limited numbers. I am sure most regimental commanders would have prefered something like a 4.2 inch mortar instead.

[Yoozername]

The 105mm Howitzer M2, M2A1, and M4 all used the same projectiles and cartridge cases. The M3 used the same projectiles, but different cartridge cases. Production of the former began in February 1941 and totaled 85,482,000. For the latter production began in January 1943 and totaled 7,920,000 rounds. I'm not sure you can calculate or infer a prioritization from that.

I think we went over it, but the 'brass' was the same. Just the powder was 'different'.

As far as production numbers, one could just look at the production rates. The M3 had ~ 8 million rounds in 28 months, the M2 and M4 had about 85.5 million rounds in 51 months. 285K vs, 1.676K. As just a general rate comparison (the rates might actually have ramped up or even down), it was somewhat of effort to field this weapon (M3). Tube numbers fielded might be another aspect. rates of fire is another. Some sources claim the M3 had to use a slower rate of fire. I have read of one account of these weapons being used at a maximum rate of fire at German retreating formations. they actually burnt out the barrels! So, fast burning powder does have drawbacks.

[Yoozername]

FWIW

http://www.schistory.net/campcroft/cannon.html#cannon

[Richard Anderson]

I think we went over it, but the 'brass' was the same. Just the powder was 'different'.

Ugh, yes, sorry, same brass, different powder composition and number of increments.

[Richard Anderson]

It was to compensate for unburned powder flashing out the end of the barrel on the M3. So, what do you mean by 'opposite'??? Even less smoke and firing signature on the M2?

Really? I always thought the different composition was to match velocities? Rapid burn and expanding gases in shorter barrel versus slower burn and expansion in longer barrel?

Another reason the M3 gun seems like a Kludge is that the ammunition (which is physically as volumetrically the same as the M2), also would take up as much space in shipping as the M2. These rounds came in 2 piece crates and weighed 125 pounds. One of the advantages of an infantry gun is a smaller overall cartridge. If it can use existing projectiles, that is a plus (note the German 75mm IG didn't). The Pack 75mm US howitzer used the common 'sherman' M48 HE as well as other projectiles. It had it's own shortened cartridge case. Maybe the 105mm M3 should have just been made for the airborne in limited numbers. I am sure most regimental commanders would have prefered something like a 4.2 inch mortar instead.

Sure...it was a kluge. Yes, many regimental commanders preferred the 4.2, but the majority, at least according to the General Board, wanted an SP.

BTW, the brass in the rounds for the 75mm howitzer was different, but used the same HE and chemical projectiles. There is an interesting account of Marines on Tarawa using howitzer rounds when they ran out of the gun rounds...the shorter case in the longer chamber created quite a bit of flashback evidently, making it rather exciting for the crew.

[Yoozername]

BTW, the brass in the rounds for the 75mm howitzer was different, but used the same HE and chemical projectiles. There is an interesting account of Marines on Tarawa using howitzer rounds when they ran out of the gun rounds...the shorter case in the longer chamber created quite a bit of flashback evidently, making it rather exciting for the crew.

Yes, I said so in my post above. I am basically following on to previous discussion in the thread. It's 'nice' if you can share projectiles and they can be a common manufactured part number. The German 7,5 cm IG had a 'special' lighter projectile than the common Spgr HE used in Pak 40, KWK 40, StuK 40, etc. I believe the Soviets shared the actual cartridges (complete ammunition) across many weapons. This made supply for them a lot easier. But, it might have made their infantry/regimental shorter barreled weapons look like civil war guns...

I think we also discussed it in another thread. But, to use a 75mm pack in a sherman 75mm, you would have to separate the projectile from the shorter pack cartridge, ram it up into the barrel so as to get a seal for the driving bands on the rifling, and then put the brass+powder into the chamber. It would be a lower velocity at best, and I wonder if the auto ejection would work. I would give it a sec after firing as a precaution.

[Yoozername]

I got a deal on this...4 bucks...can't wait

At Leningrad's Gates: The Combat Memoirs of a Soldier with Army Group North
by Lubbeck, William

It says in the Amazon preview, that they received 105mm mortars for the Heavy weapons company (13th) in 1942. I would think that weapon would be reserved for 'nebel' troops? maybe he got 120mm? Anyway, it seems that people think it is a great memoir.